sola virtus invicta

Today, I watched Vincent Lapierre’s EetR report on last week’s hearing at the court of appeal in Paris where patriot and author, Hervé Ryssen, stated his case against a 17-month prison sentence demanded by the state procurator and usual anti-racist [sic] busybody organisations (LICRA, SOS Racisme, Jewish Students Union, etc.)

The original verdict was upheld by the court, meaning that Ryssen could soon find himself behind bars. Several Ryssen supporters were brave enough to share their opinions with Lapierre. Notably, towards the end of Lapierre’s report, after the court’s decision had been announced, Parti nationaliste français spokesman and prominent French dissident, Yvan Benedetti, remarked that the anti-racism [sic] organisations’ barristers behaved like hyenas about to rip their prey to shreds. In this case, prey Ryssen’s only crimes had been to publish a controversial book cover as well as several tweets about Jewish Bolshevik involvement in the massacre of 30 million ethnic Russians – an incontestable, verified historical fact which, if publicly stated by a person disliked by the powers-that-should-not-be, is nevertheless now a criminal offence in France.

Today in Lyon, it was the turn of Benedetti. Following the death of a French Antifa activist in 2013, the then prime minister, Manuel Valls, banned longtime nationalist organisation L’Œuvre française (OF), also led by Benedetti. In a show of defiance, Benedetti made it clear that the OF would continue to exist, despite Valls’ and ex-president François ‘Flamby’ Hollande’s opposition. Benedetti’s remark led to the prosecution asking the court to condemn him to six months in prison and a 15,000 Euro fine.

Interestingly, Lapierre’s report of Ryssen’s appeal shows how the French authorities grant special privileges to members of the League de défense juive (LDJ – French equivalent of the Jewish Defence League (JDL), banned as a terrorist organisation in the USA and in Israel). Lapierre also captures what appears to be a menacing threat from one of the LDJ heavies outside court (see image left). The appeal hearing was held in the tiniest room available in the vast palais de justice. Support for Ryssen greatly outnumbered the LDJ presence – 50 turned out to cheer Ryssen to the LDJ’s five – but these five were allowed to enter the small court, meaning 90% of Ryssen’s support was excluded, seemingly deliberately. No doubt, there was also a LDJ presence today in Lyon.

Jewish supremacist LDJ thugs were also responsible for one of several physical attacks on the world’s foremost revisionist scholar Professor Robert Faurisson, the most recent leaving Faurisson in a state of chronic pain (see image below).

Those responsible have never been brought to justice. But as far as these hyenas are concerned, their violent actions create a backlash: bloodied targets are quite rightly seen as victims – not a particularly desirable state of affairs when one’s own entire raison d’être centres on victimhood.

‘My family members died a terrible death in a death camp. Compensation is due forever and ever till the end of time. How dare you question the gas chambers and the six million. You must be an evil anti-Semite. Officer, arrest this person for hurting my feelz, NOW!’

Thought-crime trials continue unabated throughout Europe. As well as the recent jailing of German activist Gerd Ittner, British ex-serviceman Jez Turner and my own awaiting punishment, next month, German-Canadian siblings Alfred and Monika Schaefer will be on trial together in Munich. A confirmed source revealed today that 89-year old imprisoned dissident Ursula Haverbeck will be attending at the prosecution’s request, no doubt a nefarious attempt to procure unfavourable testimony against the Schaefers.

My own sentencing will take place on June 14th. As with all similar trials, the JDL contingent will show up waving Israeli flags outside court. Obonxious, oxymoronic supporters of the right to free speech – for Tommy Robinson but not for Nazi scum Chabloz. It is bemusing to hear them spouting such soundbites, exactly like Antifa protesters attempting to disrupt a peaceful gathering of British patriots.

No doubt down to a lack of ‘Holocaust’ denial law until now here in the UK, persons concerned are less emboldened than their French counterparts. Several videos have appeared since my guilty verdict. Fanatic, proponent of (((echoes))) on Twitter and silent Crown witness, Jonathan Hoffman, was there with his South African yoga teacher partner Sharon Klaff. Ex-Britain First official Paul Besser and CAA associate Melanie Graham were also on duty to give orders to police sent to keep the peace after scuffles broke out. ‘Arrest him! He made a Nazi salute! Arrest him! Do your job!’ Gemma Sheridan was also part of the posse, although somewhat hard to spot among the all portliness on display from the rest of the motley crew.

*

Like a cartoon straight out of Der SturmerMy belly is big – it used to be firmer I wrote to the judge to send him a sign That if he convicts then all will be fine

*

Kahanist JDL flag wavers (see above image). If they were in the US or in Israel, their activities would be subject to prosecution under anti-terrorism legislation. Think about it. There are currently a number of young British patriots languishing in jail – some on remand – for supposedly belonging to what the press label a ‘far-right terrorist organisation’, proscribed November 2016 by ex-home secretary Amber Rudd on the express demand of the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA). It’s now official: CAA chairman Falter has more power than the actual head of state, Her Majesty the Queen! He’s been received by the current prime minister when she was home secretary. Will someone soon be boasting an OBE under his kippah, along with other illustrious gong creeps, Jimmy Savile, Greville ‘Lord’ Janner, Nick Lowles, Fiyaz Mughal, ..?

How long are British, French and Germans going to allow these busybody organisations to call the shots? How long will our elected leaders and authorities heed demands of such ‘charities’ to the detriment of true western values of democracy and freedom of expression? How long will it be before at least one member of every remaining white family in Europe is in jail for politically incorrect speech?

The criminalising of “holocaust denial”, which this judgement effectively does, ill-serves even the cause of “holocaust education”, because the criminalisation itself creates (justified!) suspicion that the approved history cannot stand up to honest examination.

[On DJ Zani’s judgement that my songs were ‘intended to insult’]: The word ‘insult’ is peculiar and irrelevant. The object of any satire is bound to feel mocked, not insulted. Insult is an emotional reaction. The insult felt by the object of satire may be commensurate with its truth. In this case, you called this minority’s bluff. That is offensive to them.

Zani says you must have felt there was a risk of insulting them. If satirists refrained from satire because of the realization that there was a ‘risk’ of insulting their targets, there would be no satire.

It is absurd to pretend that any meaningful definition of difference between gross offence and offence can be made: such law is incompatible with a democratic and free society.

Through encouraging the conflation of criticism of Jews with promotion of Jew hatred; through insisting, through its prosecution of Alison Chabloz and Jeremy Turner, that Jewish racial superiority be, de facto, enshrined in law; in short, by fomenting the very crises they purportedly exist to fight, it is the CAA itself which has committed the prosecutable offense of inciting racial hatred and hatred of British Jews.

*

(For clarification regards CAA-approved trolls mentioned in my previous post, Steve (Sidney) Silverman admitted running the account @BedlamJones in papers submitted to court, December 2016. Under cross-examination, January 2018, Silverman admitted under oath that the account @NemoNemo50 (subject of my song ‘Nemo’s Antisemitic Universe) was run by Stephen Mark Applebaum).

19 thoughts on “Europe’s twenty-first century witch trials”

Last unctivesJune 5, 2018 / 6:23 am

An excellent summary of the fact there was no crime or victim. Reads like a tomb stone for the former GB UK, now a neo theocracy of Talmudic and Sharia law, under Eretz Jewish police terrorism. They have their pound of flesh , but they haven’t paid the price for it . Wiemar II the eternal Jew. A conspiracy of the State against Alison Chabloz. Pure evil straight out of their filthy Synagogue. The chief Rabbi won’t be being prosecuted for preaching his mongrel’s criminal Messianic enslavement and hatred of non Jews .A misuse of the telecommunications act? Fuck off .

Wesley HaydenJune 5, 2018 / 6:32 am

Poors Jews…..

It must be a total joykiller to know such paranoia derived from other peoples thoughts about their lies is now in the open…

The more high profile cases the more media exposure they bring about against their own lies.

I had no idea about the Jewish question for years, as the state indoctrination I recieved helped the jew only, the way it would guide my life in a direction that left me unable to see through the lies….it is the reaction of the jews innate paranoia of the wests innate natural questioning ability coupled with repeated whining of Jews shoah cash cow that helped me break through the lie of the hollocaust commercial enterprise.

Cain has to fleece and steal or harness the productive races due to the ground being unyielding for him and his descendants…..see the book of Genesis.

Read….parable of the wheat and tares.

Thank God Jesus is coming!!!

Last unctivesJune 5, 2018 / 8:48 am

Jesus tells us who the Jews really are , what their real race is : Your father was a murderer and a liar from the beginning . Meaning Cain’s bloodline , Eve had sex with Satan ,Cain was the Devil’s son ect and also Jacob’s cursed twin brother Esau ( He sold his soul for a mess of pottage) he was cursed in the Womb , his descendents , the Edomites ( Jews) were a satanic whip for unfaithful Israel. Doesn’t sound like Jesus was a big Jew lover, he wasn’t trying to convert this satanic scum . They usurped the Temple after serving as Mercenaries in the Macabeean wars . Nothing to do with Israel. When the Canaanite woman begged for bread from Jesus his response was : Shall we give the children’s bread to dogs ?You have to see Jesus as a bigger racist than Hitler to understand him , he was no Jew lover. He knew they were born scum .

First of all, Robinson stands a real chance of being killed in prison. Secondly, you may not like Brittan or Janner but both had false allegations made against them by “Nick” in Op Midland, who has been outed abroad. I am otherwise engaged on 14th otherwise would attend.

Mary LouiseJune 5, 2018 / 4:03 pm

I’d say the ‘snivelling coward’ is someone who uses an (insulting) pseudonym instead of their own name.

The late American journalist, Joseph Sobran, wrote in a 2002 article entitled “For Fear of the Jews”: “The fear of the label anti-Semitic” is a fear of the power that is believed to lie behind it: Jewish power.” The label, he explained, would lose its utility if it were defined and
accusations of anti-Semitism now functioned just as accusations of “anti-Soviet” had in the past. The section is worth quoting at length:

“The strength of Western law has always been its insistence on definition. When we want to minimize an offense, say murder or burglary, we define it as clearly as possible. We want judge and jury to know exactly what the charge means, not only to convict the guilty but, also, just as important, to protect the innocent.

Clear definitions put a burden of proof on the accuser, and properly so. If you falsely accuse a man of murder or burglary, not only is he apt to be acquitted — you may pay a heavy penalty yourself. As a result, few of us are afraid of being charged with murders and burglaries we didn’t commit.

By contrast, the Soviet legal system left prosecutors with a wide discretion in identifying “anti-Soviet” activities. Almost anything irritating to the Soviet state could qualify. An impossible burden of proof lay on the accused; guilt was presumed; acquittals were virtually nonexistent. To be indicted was already to be convicted. Since the charge was undefined, it was unfalsifiable; there was no such thing as a false accusation. As a result, the Russian population lived in fear.

If you want to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty, you define crimes precisely. If, however, you merely want to maximize the number of convictions, increase the power of the accusers, and create an atmosphere of dread, you define crimes as loosely as possible. We now have an incentive system that might have been designed to promote loose charges of “anti-Semitism.”

if you want to avoid being called “anti-Semitic,” the safest course is to renounce Christianity. Whether this is a safe course for your immortal soul is a question left unaddressed. The important thing is to avoid Jewish censure. Obviously this sort of thinking presupposes Christian fear of the Jews. Jews themselves are not unaware of Jewish power; some of them have rather exaggerated confidence in it.”

The Crown Prosecution decision to reverse its original recognition that Alison Chabloz and Jeremy Turner had broken no law stands as an act of unseemly appeasement. It is a substitution of the law with a new standard of adjudication: namely, avoiding Jewish censure at all costs. Such irrational and slavish fear on the Crown’s part, incarcerates the innocent in order to feed CAA’s “rather exaggerated confidence.” The Crown’s fear replaces the foundation of Western Law’s strength -clear definition-with an utterly irrational belief in Jewish superiority.

There is only one solution: The fear must no longer be given its head. It must be checked. Now.

All that will take is for there to be one reasonable person left in government. If such a person is left, he will grasp what is to be done: expose Jewish power as a god with tin feet; a god existing in direct proportion to the willingness of officials in government and media to fear and serve it.

No one understands this as clearly as the Jews themselves. To paraphrase the filmmaker Coen brothers:

“You don’t run this town Gideon Falter, the Crown just thinks you do. Once they stop thinkin’ it; you stop runnin’ it.”

Last unctivesJune 5, 2018 / 3:20 pm

This is state terrorism plain and simple, the mere act of posting isn’t a misuse of the telecommunications act( excepting an incitement to a real crime) , what absolute fucking Jewish garbage , Any body could be arrested for posting anything, arrested for merely posting ,but not for the actual content of the post , there was absolutely nothing criminal about the content of Alison’s songs . Apparently the mere act of posting was offensive to Zanni ? How did he work that out ? Only offensive to filthy Yids like Zanni . What a dirty mongrel bastard , he should fuck off to an Israeli court were he belongs , The narcissist corruption of the law unto themselves Judiciary , is systemic , like some one selling scag , Such a disgusting act of Jewiish terrorism can only be dealt with in one way . The names of the filthy bastards in the police , CPS , Judiciary, church of England , and related Rabbic filth , Masons ,media , ect ect ect are there for any one to see . A filthy act of terrorism in a British court , by non British Jewish filth , the only thing British them about is their fucking passport , they can never be British,Deport this fucking scum to Israel. The horrible conspiracy ,of state Zionism bare arsed like some one having a shit in the street , the names of these fucking animals are in plain sight …………..and the non Jew narcissist careerists involved , what a fucking abortion.

Sophie JohnsonJune 7, 2018 / 11:02 am

Thanks for your summary of readers’ asessments of your prosecution. Alison. At least we know that others share our attitudes.

Having now been close to two judges’ behaviours (during your and Jez’s hearing), I cannot but wring my hands in frustration: If we had a free press, then judges would have to fear exposure for treacherous behaviours like blatantly siding with the Prosecution, and they would avoid those behaviours. As it is, they get away with them. That is an abuse of the Defendant, and it is sick: a travesty of justice, not its delivery. Why is there no media law in this country?

Last unctivesJune 7, 2018 / 11:50 am

For no media law I would read , no constitutional rights protections, or the basic principle of equality before the law , obviously we know who owns the press .The constitution was never repealed , and it says it can only be repealed by the people , unfortunately since the mid 19th century the Sovereignty ( dictatorship) of parliament has been unlawfully usurping Magna Garta and the Bill of rights , 1688. ect . Obviously the constitution of parliament , the political constitution is known by another name as the unwritten constitution , but this is a lie , the constitution is written as above and is unrepealed , the actual real sovereign power of the UK and Zanni’s court is not parliament. You could write to the Queen and ask her to abdicate , for not upholding her oath to enforce the constitution and common law ect . In most cases like Alison’s Barrister’s avoid these questions , Zanni takes an oath of allegiance to the constitution and common law , forced him to repeat it at the sentencing , if he refuses the whole trial will be invalidated , or even if he does , ask him to dismiss his own verdict , because this Statute of parliament , isn’t constitutional is unlawful, and warn him that he will be commiting an act of treason punishable by the death penalty, isn’t even a main inditable offence , you can’t be arrested for it with out a judge’s warrant That is a summary offence not main common law ect . Apart from that in the UK in reality you actually have no real rights of any real significance , hence these unlawful police courts of parliament, and disgusting lackey’s like Zanni . Under Magna Garta , the Bill of Rights 1688, and the common law , Alison has committed absolutely no crime what so ever.

To any reasonable person, Adrian Davies is entirely correct regarding the following submissions:

—
30. Mr Davies submits that the Defendant in the present case did not ‘send’ or ’cause to be sent’ the messages that are the subject of these proceedings by reason of the fact that :
(i) she did not upload the recorded performance to YouTube
(ii) her actions consisted merely of posting a hyperlink on her blog which provided readers / viewers of her blog with an opportunity to view the said performance if they chose to do so
(iii) posting a hyperlink to another website bears no relationship to the offence created by s.127 of the 2003 Act.

31. Mr Davies asserts that any action by the Defendant which may have amounted to facilitation is quite different from any act of transmission. He adds that it is not conceded by the defence that uploading a video amounts to a sending and that, in any event, mere facilitation is not within the meaning or intendment of s.127 of the 2003 Act.

32. Mr Davies further submits that even if – which is not conceded – a Tweet is to be considered to be a transmission, posting a hyperlink on a website is not, as an Internet user has to make the decision to visit the website and to then click on the hyperlink once on the site. He asserts that no transmission by the owner of the website is involved.

33. Mr Davies adds that in order to gain access to the YouTube content one needs to locate the relevant hyperlink on YouTube and then click on it so as to download the video in question. He submits that the material on YouTube is not generally accessible in the way that a Tweet is. He adds that the viewer (via YouTube) has to make a conscious decision to look for and then download it.
—

The originator of the message regards the contents as satire, but not “grossly offensive”. In such a case, sending “by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive” or “caus[ing] any such message or matter to be so sent” must necessarily include transmission and delivery to a sentient, sapient recipient, who can determine whether or not the material is “grossly offensive”. Sending a series of electronic signals to a lump of silicon in a concrete bunker in California cannot be an offence, since the silicon is neither sentient nor sapient, and consequently has no understanding of “grossly offensive”. Therefore, at this stage, although the message has been transmitted by the original sender and delivered to the silicon lump, no one has classed the material as “grossly offensive”.

If a politically motivated offence-taker or whiner subsequently chooses to search out the material in question, and deliberately sends it to himself or herself, and then continues to receive and view the material in order to be as “offended” as possible, and then alleges that the material is “grossly offensive” in order to promote his or her political agenda, then he or she is guilty of the offence for sending the “grossly offensive” material from the silicon to himself or herself. It is the complainant who should be charged, not the content creator or original sender.

Gideon Falter sought out the material, and made the decision to stream and download the material to his device. Mr Falter is both sentient and sapient. Since the material was still streaming – i.e., being transmitted and received – after he judged the material to be “grossly offensive”, it follows that Mr Falter is guilty for “sending” or “causing to be […] so sent” a “message or other matter that is grossly offensive” over a “public electronic communications network”.

This interpretation would still protect a specific recipient who had been sent material by a malicious sender who intended the material to be grossly offensive. In such a case the recipient would not have sought out the material in question, and the sender would be guilty as per the original meaning and intendment of s.127 of the 2003 Act.

34. The 2003 Act does not provide a definition of the word ‘send’ or the phrase ’causes to be sent’ and there does not appear to be any direct appellate authority on either of those terms. However, s.1(3) Malicious Communications Act 1988 (‘the 1988 Act’) may be of some assistance. This states that ………. “In this section references to sending include references to delivering or transmitting and to causing to be sent, delivered or transmitting and “sender” shall be construed accordingly.”

35. Ms Robinson, for the CPS, submits the following:
(i) A proper definition of “send” or “causes .. to be so sent” must include the concept of transmission, delivery or conveyance, analogous to s.1(3) of the 1988 Act above.

So far, so good.

(ii) The clear purpose of s.127 of the 2003 Act was to prohibit the use of a public service for the transmission of communications which would contravene the basic standards of society.

Ms Robinson has stated the ostensible purpose. Given that the 2003 Act was brought in just as Britain was waging an illegal war against Iraq based on lies about “WMD”, the real motivation is likely to have been more to do with enabling the government and its puppet masters to curb free speech, whenever no other laws could be found as a pretext for shutting up truth tellers and whistleblowers.

But even if we accept Ms Robinson’s premise, the problem is that “the basic standards of society” have been redefined under cultural Marxism (political correctness). In today’s Britain, two-year-old nursery children are taught about “gender fluidity” and five-year-olds are taught about sodomy. TV soap operas are allowed to portray degeneracy such as homosexuality and race-mixing as the norm, and debauchery is seen as the highest goal that one can aspire to.

Telling the truth should be one of the “basic standards of society”. And that includes speaking out about crimes and deceptions, such as a fake historical narrative that was fabricated to distract from Allied atrocities such as Dresden, Katyn and Hiroshima, and to allow a cult of religious supremacists to steal Palestine as their own ill-gotten sovereign state. No group should be above the law or beyond criticism, and no group of puppet masters should be able to shut down all criticism of itself by pulling the strings of the CPS.

(iii) It accords with the public policy which informed the relevant provisions, therefore, to include within the scope of the offences those who use, by any means, a public electronic communications service to facilitate access by the public of material which is considered to be ‘grossly offensive’ or ‘of an indecent, obscene or menacing character’.

The truth is only “grossly offensive” to liars, deceivers and nation wreckers who hope to get away with their chicanery.

(iv) There is no material distinction to be drawn between
(a) the uploading of a video and
(b) the posting of a hyperlink to that video
and that as such, the posting of a hyperlink to the material complained of constitutes sending or causing to be so sent for the purposes of s.127 of the 2003 Act.

This is palpable nonsense, since posting a hyperlink is merely facilitating access to material for any interested parties. In Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47, a case about publishing defamatory material, the Canadian Supreme Court upheld the trial ruling that “the mere creation of a hyperlink in a website does not lead to a presumption that someone actually used the hyperlink to access the impugned words. The [original] judge agreed that hyperlinks were analogous to footnotes since they only refer to another source without repeating it. Since there was no repetition, there was no publication. Furthermore, in the absence of evidence that anyone other than C used the links and read the words to which they linked, there could not be a finding of publication.”

The Supreme Court held that “Hyperlinks are, in essence, references, which are fundamentally different from other acts of “publication”. Hyperlinks and references both communicate that something exists, but do not, by themselves, communicate its content. They both require some act on the part of a third party before he or she gains access to the content. The fact that access to that content is far easier with hyperlinks than with footnotes does not change the reality that a hyperlink, by itself, is content neutral. Furthermore, inserting a hyperlink into a text gives the author no control over the content in the secondary article to which he or she has linked.”

111. ‘Grossly Offensive’ Ruling :
(i) As stated above, it is not the function of this court to make any finding as to whether the Holocaust actually took place, nor that any and / or every example of Holocaust dispute or denial is unlawful. This court also bears in mind, however, as Mr Davies points out, that questioning the historicity of the Holocaust is not illegal in the UK.
(ii) This court has to focus on whether any or all of the songs that are the subject-matter of the charges before it contain material which, in part or in whole, meets the definition of being ‘Grossly Offensive’ per Collins aforesaid.
(iii) This court has to consider each allegation on its own merits and it has to give the words used their ordinary meaning and to apply the standards of an open and just multi-racial society.
(iv) This court has viewed the material complained of and has taken into account the content, manner of delivery and tone used by the defendant in those songs, as well as the choice of music by way of accompaniment.
(v) It is this court’s opinion that certain historical events affecting members of the Jewish community as well as comments made of certain selected Jewish individuals (the defendant has here focused on Elie Wiesel, Otto Frank and Irene Zisblatt) have been deliberately portrayed in a way that members of an open and multi-cultural society would find particularly insulting, upsetting and disrespectful.

Judge Zani contradicts himself. He states in 111(i) that it is not the court’s job to determine whether the alleged “Holocaust” actually occurred. Then in (v) he goes on to talk about “certain historical events affecting members of the Jewish community”, i.e., he is necessarily assuming that “the Holocaust” narrative of homicidal “gas chambers” (with their mean cyanide concentrations being 2,586 times lower than those for the delousing chambers and lower than those for road salt) and the “extermination” of around “six million” Jews (as predicted as early as 1906, 1910, 1919, 1921, etc., and not reflected in the Jewish world population figures of 6 million in 1889 and 15 million today) actually occurred.

If the “Holocaust” is a hoax, as indeed it is, then some gentle mockery to shake innocent but gullible people out of their delusional dream world is sorely needed. And ridiculing and satirising thieving liars is much less than they deserve.

If mocking “the Holocaust” is to be upheld as “grossly offensive”, then the burden of proof rests with the Court to prove that “the Holocaust” actually occurred. But in more than 70 years of trying, no one has ever been able to prove such a thing.

The Court will need to explain how the Germans were able to circumvent the laws of energy conservation in bringing about a 3.2-fold increase in cremation speed of their Topf ovens between 1941 and 1942 whilst at the same time attaining a 15-fold reduction in fuel consumption and a 20-fold increase in firebrick durability. (Note: stuffing 4 to 6 bodies simultaneously into a muffle designed for one doesn’t improve performance, and the claimed ratio of coke consumed to organic material disposed of at 0.033:1 (by mass) is not even achieved in the performance of modern animal cremators and incinerators, whether individual cremations or multiple simultaneous cremations per muffle.)

The Court will need to explain why the Germans would use 99.9% of their Zyklon B for attempting to save their prisoners’ lives in delousing chambers at the same time as using the remaining 0.1% for “exterminating” them. The Court will need to explain why a “death camp”, namely Auschwitz, would feature a hospital where young Jews were treated (e.g., Anne Frank for scabies) when “exterminations” were allegedly being perpetrated.

The Court will need to explain how a massive conspiracy to “exterminate” “six million” Jews could have been conducted with no more than an “incredible meeting of minds”, without any “Hitler order”, and with no central office, budget or blueprint for “exterminations”. The Court will need to explain why no references to “gassings” were ever found in decrypted communications intercepts or private diaries, why no photos or film footage of “gassings” were ever found, and why no autopsies ever found evidence of death by poison gas.

The Court will need to explain how 25 Jewish woodcutters at Treblinka could have chopped, sawn and transported the 261,000 tonnes of green (wet) wood required to cremate 870,000 bodies in the open air within six or seven months when well-fed and well-equipped Italian woodcutters in peacetime are known to have achieved a productivity rate of 0.555 tons of wood per woodcutter per day, and when at the same rate of productivity the Jewish woodcutters on wartime rations would have taken (261,000 / (0.555 * 25)) = 18,811 days = 51.5 years = from March 1943 to September 1994.

The Court will need to explain why Heinrich Himmler, after becoming so worried in late February or early March of 1943 that the Allies might discover millions of alleged buried corpses in Russia and Poland, including nearly 900,000 Jews at Treblinka, and panicking and issuing an order to exhume and cremate all the bodies as part of a massive cover-up “plot”, would then go on to talk openly about exterminating the Jews in a “secret” speech – and even have it recorded so that it could be used as evidence against him (!) – at Posen later that year, on 4 October, 1943.

The Court will need to explain how nearly 3,000 Germans (the “Einsatzgruppen”) could have murdered 1 to 3 million Jews after finding and selecting them from an enemy population of tens of millions in a war zone, and could then have eliminated all “the evidence” by cremating all the bodies, whilst bizarrely being able to collect enough fuel in occupied territory in the allotted time, and all under the noses of Soviet surveillance aircrew without anyone noticing mass cremations. And the Court will need to explain why, if Germans could on average each dispose of hundreds of opponents, they did not go on to conquer the world.

The Court will need to explain why we should believe in a gigantic “conspiracy” by thousands and thousands of Germans to mass murder six million Jews, including a massive cover up “plot” to eliminate “the evidence” to make it seem like it never happened, when the only remaining evidence is the word of self-interested parties, ‘confessions’ obtained under duress, and wilfully misinterpreted or fabricated “documents”.

The Court will need to explain why we should disregard Occam’s Razor and shy away from the simpler hypothesis – it looks like “the Holocaust” never happened because it didn’t happen.

112. Put shortly, this court is entirely satisfied that the material in each of the songs complained of is grossly offensive, as judged by the standards of an open and multi-racial society – as opposed to any of them being, for example, merely offensive.

Judge Zani can only arrive at such a ruling by assuming that “the Holocaust” actually occurred, without providing any evidence or proof that it actually occurred. His reasoning is circular, and would be thrown out in any impartial judgement.

Given that Judge John A Zani is a trustee of the Mazzini Garibaldi Foundation, which amongst its objectives includes…

“(5) The promotion of equality and diversity for the public benefit by, for example:
(i) advancing education and raising awareness about peoples from different countries or racial groups to promote good relations between such persons;
(ii) promoting knowledge and mutual understanding between peoples of different countries or racial groups; in particular between the British and Italian communities in the United Kingdom.”

…then it is not surprising that Judge Zani chooses to virtue signal by expressing favour for the politically correct notions of “diversity” and “anti-racism”.

More importantly, given that the Jews have attained such political power that any attempt at criticise them is slapped down as so-called (and grotesquely misnamed) “antisemitism”, it is no surprise that Judge Zani chooses to rule in favour of the Jews.

The overall result is a heavily biased ruling in support of the new Orwellian tyranny, in which truth is “lies” and lies are ‘truth’, and a singer can be prosecuted and even possibly jailed – all because the corrupt ruling elite tries to cling to power by suppressing free speech and free debate.

Sophie JohnsonJune 8, 2018 / 9:28 pm

You did superb work in all your posts here, Poseiddon. Thank you for your lucid analyses.

Last unctivesJune 7, 2018 / 8:25 pm

Yes that is all true Posidion , the telecommunications act has been stretched beyond any legal norm or rationality ,(misuse of a hyperlink ???) the fact the link is about the Holocaust is totally irrelevant , it’s not illegal to right songs about the Holocaust , quite simply there has been no offense , either as the use of the hyperlink or some non existent offence about the Holocaust, quite , simply there is no basis for his verdict , nothing at all , if there is then he isn’t telling us ! Doesn’t make any sense. Only makes sense in a police state , using absurd non legal interpretations , he’s following instructions from High court , law lords ( Mark Collet did a Vid about this non parliamentary , law unto themselves pseudo mumbo jumbo guidelines brought in to please MAY’S non parliamentary policy ,her big crack down policy for extremists , she doesn’t have enough votes for her garbage. ) That court and judge has no authority , even from a rotten parliament for what their doing , trying to palm of these unlawful guidelines as normal . It’s utterly disgusting filth , Zanni has no authority , nor does his court , it’s one of the most disgusting perversions of a Judges oath ever to occur , years of treating equality before the law, as a joke and literally making themselve the LAW , in the guise of pseudo biased verdicts has gone on for way too long , with out constitutional rights ,it was bound to reach an untenable illogical , unlawful breaking point , and this why the case makes no sense , other than as a terrible conspiracy of the state against a totally innocent woman . Which behind all the bullshit legalese, is what it actually is , bare arsed treason in a fucking wig.